Belgium Bans the Burka

[Gob]

A Conservative MP has been warned he could face legal action if he refuses to meet constituents who wear burkas or niqabs, which hide their faces.

Lawyers for pressure group Liberty have written to Philip Hollobone stating the Equality Act obliges him to avoid discrimination.

The Kettering MP said he needed to meet voters face-to-face.

He added he would invite those who did not remove their veil to communicate in a different way, such as by letter.

Mr Hollobone was unavailable for comment when the BBC attempted to contact him.

He is trying to bring in a Private Member's Bill to ban women wearing the burka or niqab in public. A similar rule has been introduced in France.

His comments were criticised by Muslim groups, and the idea of a ban has been dismissed by government ministers as "un-British" and unhelpful to women.

Immigration minister Damian Green has said banning the full Islamic veil in public would be "at odds with the UK's tolerant society".

Liberty has now offered to represent any woman wishing to make a legal challenge against Mr Hollobone if she is refused a meeting with him because of her veil.

In its letter to Mr Hollobone, Liberty said it "will be happy to represent any of your constituents that you refuse to meet because they are veiled".

James Welch, legal director for Liberty, added: "We have written to Mr Hollobone to advise him of the law as enacted by Parliament and feel confident that no well-advised Honourable Member would seek to breach it by meeting with constituents on a discriminatory basis."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10750908

[Scooter]

Scoot, do you believe it's right that a religion can allow men, in western society, to imprison women at home if they do not wear the burka?

Do you believe it's right that religious leaders can force women to conform to a type of clothing?

Obviously not, but using the law to take away freedom (to dress as one chooses in this case) is not the way to advance freedom. I'm sure that there are women who adopt such dress because of familial or societal pressure - the mode of dress is in those cases an outward sign of an inward sense of slavery. Using the law to prohibit the outward sign isn't going to "free" someone until they no longer see themselves as slaves.

[Gob]

Very true, but it does send a very strong message that that sort of quasi-religious servitude is not acceptable in Bristh/French/Belgian society.

[Scooter]

Does it, or does it make certain segments of those societies feel persecuted and, therefore, more inward looking and less likely to be exposed to influences that will cause future generations to abandon such ideas of servitude?

[Gob]

An argument can be made for both cases.

However, I do not think discrimination can be made for this quasi-religious garb in the first world. To do so sends the wrong message, and encourages the patriarchal dominance of women.

If you wish to enter a public building, especially one with security priorities, then you should obey the law of the land, and expose your face. (I'm sure that for 99.99999999999999% of men, seeing your face will not drive them into ungovernable throughs of passion.)

If people wish to live in the UK/France/Belgium etc, then they should respect the laws and customs of that place.

[loCAtek]

Scoot, do you believe it's right that a religion can allow men, in western society, to imprison women at home if they do not wear the burka?

Do you believe it's right that religious leaders can force women to conform to a type of clothing?

Obviously not, but using the law to take away freedom (to dress as one chooses in this case) is not the way to advance freedom. I'm sure that there are women who adopt such dress because of familial or societal pressure - the mode of dress is in those cases an outward sign of an inward sense of slavery. Using the law to prohibit the outward sign isn't going to "free" someone until they no longer see themselves as slaves.

Granted, but as Gob said

However, I do not think discrimination can be made for this quasi-religious garb in the first world. To do so sends the wrong message, and encourages the patriarchal dominance of women.

A step towards changing the 'slave' mindset is to show societal acceptance of individual liberation. This society encourages your freedom.

[Scooter]

Demonstrating acceptance of individual liberation by dictating in law what an individual may or may not wear? Bit of a mixed message, no?

[Gob]

Good point Scoot. But giving the message that we do not accept this way of treating women in our society is a good thing in my book.

[Gob]

Each passenger has to submit their own passport and boarding pass so they can be identified at the last check in point before boarding the aircraft.

EXCEPT for muslims!

The first face covered woman walks straight past security as the daddy gives in ALL the passports, then the rest of them, including another face covered woman also walk past without being even looked at by the staff. Yes I did complain, both at the check in desk and also when I was boarding the plane. The security companies and air carriers are scared of being called 'racist' ( yes, I know Islam is not a race) I suppose, so instead they compromise YOUR safety!

PLEASE WRITE TO CANADIAN SECURITY MINISTER VIC TOEWS ABOUT THIS.

HIS ADDRESS IS Toews.V@parl.gc.ca

ALSO SEND A COPY TO THE PRIME MINISTER harper.s@parl.gc.ca

[Big RR]

If that final gate check is for security, as the quoted passage alleges, then it is just stupid to exempt some people. Indeed, if the airline wanted to be "sensitive" they could set up a screen and allow those who chose not to publicly display their faces to do so to a single checker (most likely a woman) in private, but this is by no means necessary. When I traveled to Saudi Arabia screens like that were set up at passport control and at security, and, I presume, the women in burquas were privately identified in this same way.

However, I wouldn't be surprised if this last check isn't for security, but just so the airline can make sure people didn't lose their passports between security and boarding. As I understand it, th carrier is fined every time someone arrives in another country without a proper passport. If they choose not to check moslem women (or everyone else for that matter) all it affects is the airline's liability, not anyone's safety. Everyone has already passed through security screening and is in a "quarantined" zone thereafter--I think a gate security check accomplishes little, and think the airline is just checking for the presence of passports. I know when I board domestic US flights all I have to do is hand in my boarding pass, no identification is required after the intial securiy check.

[Gob]

I think you are right there BigRR, and I think that some sort of accommodation should be made for those wishing to travel internationally, and keep their traditional garb. However this should be done at every stage of the process.

Here's another dilemma;

A PERTH Muslim woman wants a judge to decide whether she can wear a burka while giving evidence.

The woman believes she could say the "wrong things" if forced to take off the traditional covering.

Tasneem, who did not want her last name published, said she had worn the burka -- which covers her whole body except her eyes and hands -- for about 20 years and it would be uncomfortable to take it off in front of men she did not know while in the witness box.

"It's not that I'm being funny or obstinate or whatever, it's just that I'm feeling uncomfortable to uncover in court in front of all these people," she told The Australian. "I'd probably say the wrong things because I'm not used to uncovering in front of men."

How Tasneem may give evidence, if at all, will be the subject of debate before Perth District Court judge Shauna Deane today after defence lawyers raised concerns that the jury would not be able to assess her facial expressions.

The case is believed to be the first of its kind in Australia and could set a legal precedent.

Yesterday politicians weighed into the debate, with Opposition Leader Tony Abbott labelling the burka confronting and saying it should not be worn in Australia, and West Australian Premier Colin Barnett defending the right of people to dress according to their religion, but saying witnesses in court should have their faces exposed. But this was a matter for the judge, he added.

Tasneem said she could understand there may be regulations surrounding how witnesses gave evidence but she never had trouble communicating her opinion.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/na ... 5901330693

.

[Scooter]

In the Canadian case, they are supposed to be looking at photo ID at the gate and ensuring that it coresponds to both the passenger in front of them and the boarding pass, so to have not insisted on viewing the women's faces was a breach of regulations. However, I question whether this had anything to do with being sensitive to their religious/social/cultural sensibilities. There have been a lot of times when I have flown when the gate agent has taken my ID and compared it to my boarding pass without lifting his/her head to look at my face; I wonder if the person who complained happened to notice it with the veiled women and took no notice of other people sailing by without the gate agent giving them so much as at glance; he/she may not have even seen that the women were even wearing veils if he/she was paying as much attention as some gate agents I have dealt with.

[Aard Vark]

Hey Gob Just a little thing to think about A Muslem woman is required to remove her Burka in a court of law, At the request of police or other orthority eg army or cival defence officer and at the request of people in security or entering a secure area if asked to.
That is the Muslem law not our's or Belgium's law.
It was made clear by a spokeswoman on the news this morning.

I was looking for it but couldn't find the cable chanel to get a copy of the interview. (sorry)

So to my limeted understanding If a law is passed to ban the burka then by the Muslem law women should have no complaints about removing it. As it would be enforced by the police and they are required to remove the Burka if told to by police. It is offencive for a woman to wear the Burka in a Court of law (wich is also part of the local Mosk) if she is to give everdence.
{ A bit of triva If the woman is the accused she will have her burka removed and is not aloud to cover her face at any time till she is proven inercent}

There is no question if the Burka can be worn or not in a Western Australian Court. It must be removed as if in a Muslem court. End of argument if you ask me.

[Big RR]

Scooter--I guess that's different from in the US then; every time I board a domestic flight all I have to show is my boarding pass, no ID at all (this was checked at security). By all means, if she is required to be identified, she should be (but I don't think it to much to ask that provisions be made to do so in a more private are, like behind a screen; indeed, such provisions are often made at the security checkpoints for people who object to being searched by electronic wnading in front of others--this is no different).

Gob--my immediate response to the ocurt situation is that she should remove her veil, as the jurors/judge should have the ability to see her face to assess the veracity of what she say. It also allows the accused to confront his/her accuser in the traditions face to face way. I agree this may make her uncomfortable, but I do think there is a compelling reason behind it. As for Aardy's assessment, I have no idea what laws apply to wearin/removal of the burqua (although I understand it is not required by the moselm religion), so I will refrain from comment.

[Gob]

I agree BigRR, you cannot give evidence from behind this:



Aardy, is that national law, or Sharia law? If it's Sharia law, our "western law" does not count.

[loCAtek]

Switch-a-roo!

Burka 1 Bikini 0
A British woman was detained yesterday for wearing a bikini through a 5 star shopping centre in Dubai. She was briefly detained by police questioned and later allowed to leave again, for the crime of wearing a bikini.

Apparently the tourist was shopping yesterday and was approached by a conservatively dressed Emirati woman who criticised her low cut top, the response of the woman was to strip down to her bikini and began to walk through the shopping mall.

Shopping centre security detained both women and took them to the police station for questioning, they were both released later that day.

The police office refused to release any details of the incident as he was not authorised to talk to the media. It highlights an interesting argument, when the world has to abide by and respect the wishes of the region with keeping conservatively dressed. Although outrage is caused when countries are challenging the wearing of the Burka, with comments of racism, not respecting culture etc etc.

Read more: http://www.footprintsdownunder.com.au/b ... der.com.au

[Lord Jim]

Well, if I had to choose between living in a country that banned Burkas and one that banned Bikini's, that would be pretty much a no brainer....

[Scooter]

And if someone tried walking thru a shopping mall in the U.S./Canada in a bikini, mall security would toss her out on her ass, and if she refused to leave she would be arrested for trespassing. So let's not pretend this was "cultural".

[Lord Jim]

I think that would depend on where the mall was and how skimpy the Bikini....

[Scooter]

Well let's put it this way...this didn't happen steps away from a beach.